This bill is similar to previous legislation known as the Internet Tax Freedom Act
(ITFA).

The just introduced bill would impose a five year moratorium on new and discriminatory
state and local taxes on mobile services.

It provides that "No State or local jurisdiction shall impose a new discriminatory
tax on or with respect to mobile services, mobile service providers, or mobile service
property, during the 5-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act."

Like the various ITFAs, this bill is loaded with exceptions. First, it does not affect
federal taxation. Second, it grandfathers all existing taxes. Third, it does not restrict
any taxes that fund universal service subsidies. Fourth, it does not restrict any taxes
that fund 911 programs.

It defines "mobile services" as "commercial mobile radio service"
(CMRS) or "any other service that is primarily intended for receipt on, transmission
from, or use with a mobile telephone, including but not limited to the receipt of a
digital good."

It defines "mobile service providers" as "any entity that sells or provides
mobile services, but only to the extent that such entity sells or provides
mobile services".

It defines "mobile service property" as "all property used by a mobile
service provider in connection with its business of providing mobile services,
whether real, personal, tangible, or intangible and includes, but is not limited
to goodwill, licenses, customer lists, and other similar intangible property
associated with such business".

Rep. Lofgren (at left) stated in a
release that "The
Cell Tax Fairness Act will help ensure that consumers make choices about communications
technology based on the merits of that technology, rather than on the rate of taxation".

She added that "The Cell Tax Fairness Act does not take away any existing revenue
for state or local governments, it simply calls for a period of tax stabilization that will
help further innovation and access in the wireless world."

Rep. Cannon stated in a
release that "This new bill prevents the imposition of new discriminatory
tax increases on wireless service. This is a basic issue of tax fairness.
Government in America has a spending problem and an addiction to taxing emerging
industries. We should let the market decide what technology and products
emerge. Taxes and regulation tend to kill new ideas."

Rep. Cannon's release also states that "Currently, typical consumer pays
15.19 % of their wireless bill in federal, state, and local taxes, fees and
charges, compared to 7.07% for other goods and services. Between January 2003
and July 2007, the effective rate of taxation on wireless service increased four
times faster than the rate for other taxable goods and services."

Rep. Cannon also stated that "With the spectrum freed up by the transition
from analog to digital television, wireless will be an increasingly popular and
viable platform for broadband access to the Internet. Nothing will kill this
growth like the meddling hand of government."

Steve Largent, head of the CTIA, stated in a
release that
"Keeping wireless taxes at a fair and reasonable level is critical to growing
the economy and making the workforce more productive, efficient and informed ...
We should do everything in our power to remove the roadblocks -- such as
excessive, discriminatory wireless taxes -- that stand in the way of progress,
and the Cell Tax Fairness legislation introduced today in the House is a
positive step in the right direction."

Lowell McAdam, P/CEO of Verizon Wireless, stated in this release that "The
wireless sector of the technology industry continues to be an important driver
for growth in our nation’s economy. Americans don't just talk on their wireless
phones anymore; they access the Internet, get information, pay bills and use
wireless to be more productive at work and other every day activities".

McAdam added that "With about 15 percent of each customer's monthly bill
already going to taxes and fees, increasing discriminatory and unfair taxes on
wireless customers presents a clear and present danger to future growth.
Policymakers should roll back taxes on wireless customers."

mywireless.org stated in a release
that "wireless consumers pay approximately $21 billion dollars annually in
wireless taxes and fees" and that "state and local taxes and fees on wireless
services are regressive" and "the burden often falls especially hard on
fixed-income users such as seniors, working families and small businesses".

House Passes Tax Bill with Cell Phone Tax
Provision

4/15. The House passed HR 5719
[LOC |
WW], the
"Taxpayer Assistance and Simplification Act of 2008". The is a large tax bill.
Section 3 pertains to federal taxation of cell phones and other communications devices. Very
little of the debate focused on cell phone taxes. Enactment of this bill into law is
doubtful.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is now asserting that
it can compel taxpayers to treat the acquisition and use of cell phones and other
devices paid for by employers as income to employees. This bill would, among
other things, remove the clause "any cellular telephone (or other similar
telecommunications equipment)" from the enumeration of "listed property" in
Section 280F of the Internal Revenue Code, the provision relied upon by the IRS.

See, story titled "IRS Initiative Taxes Employees for Use of Work Cell Phones and Other
Devices" and story
"Bills Introduced to Stop IRS from Taxing Employees for Work Cell
Phones and Other Devices" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,745, April 11, 2008.

The House passage of this bill is likely an exercise in political posturing.
However, whether the Congress will enact stand alone legislation regarding
federal cell phone taxation is another question.

Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY), stated
during floor debate on April 15 that "we know that this legislation will face a steep
consideration of some saying ``dead on arrival´´ in the other body. We've seen
the administration have its advisers threaten veto."

He described this bill as "another one-House bill".

He said that "It gets tough, as we move towards November of an election year, to explain
that we didn't get much done, but boy did we have a lot of action on one-House bills."

Most of this bill deals with tax topics other than cell phones. During debate over the
rule, and then the bill itself, only four members mentioned cell phones. Each of these was
only a brief reference. Nevertheless, all four expressed support for Section 3.

Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) criticized the bill as a whole,
but said that "I support the provision that no longer requires employees to keep track
of the cell phone calls they make on their office cell phones".

Rep. Earl
Pomeroy (D-ND) (at right) stated that "right now we have an onerous paperwork
requirement on employers providing cell phones to employees for business purposes. I commend
my Republican colleague on Ways and Means, Sam Johnson, for bringing this to our attention.
I was pleased to cosponsor legislation with him now included in the bill that makes this
paperwork requirement go away."

Later he added that "small businesses that right now are subject to IRS audit
exposure if they are not keeping detailed call records on cell phones that they
give their employees."

Rep. Bruce Braley (D-IA) said that "I am
supportive of the provision in this bill that eliminates the requirement for individuals and
small businesses to keep onerous records of calls made on cell phones to substantiate business
use of such devices. I have heard from employers in Iowa's First District about the
administrative burden that this creates, and I am glad Congress is reducing this
burden."

Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO) said that "To help
small businesses, the bill will eliminate the outdated requirement to maintain and submit
detailed call records to substantiate business use of employer-provided cell phones."

Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX) is the sponsor of
HR 5450 [LOC |
WW], the
"Modernize Our Bookkeeping In the Law for Employee's Cell Phone Act of 2008"
or "MOBILE Cell Phone Act of 2008". The substantive language of HR 5450 was
incorporated into HR 5719 as Section 3.

Rep. Johnson voted against HR 5719. He then issued a
release that states that "Because Democrats loaded up the tax simplification bill
with unrelated items, Johnson voted against".

He wrote that his bill "would update the tax treatment of cell phones and
Blackberries used for business and repeal the requirement that employers and employees
maintain detailed logs of cell phone use."

Rep. Johnson added that "A constituent concern generated the concept for Johnson's
legislation. In February, a lawyer from North Texas contacted the Congressman on behalf
of a client. The IRS wanted the client to keep records on employee cell phone and Blackberry
use or forfeit the deduction. Given the tremendous advances in this technology, Johnson
thought the IRS should modernize the tax code as quickly as possible."

4/15. The Supreme Court issued its
opinion [21
pages in PDF] in MeadWestvaco v. Illinois Department of Revenue, vacating the
judgment of the Appellate Court of Illinois on Constitutional grounds.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion. He labeled it a concurring opinion
because he concluded that the Supreme Court's precedent warranted reversal. However, he
advocated abandonment of precedent.

Mead Corporation, the predecessor in interest of MeadWestvaco Coporporation, acquired Data
Corporation in 1968 for $6 Million. One of Data's assets was an information retrieval system
that Mead developed into what became known as Lexis/Nexis. Mead made additional capital
contributions. Mead is an Ohio corporation. However, Lexis/Nexis was managed from offices
in Illinois, and had offices in Ohio and elsewhere. Mead incorporated Lexis/Nexis as a wholly
owned subsidiary in 1990. It sold Lexis/Nexis in 1994 for about $1.5 Billion to
Reed Elsevier. It thereby realized a capital gain of over $1 Billion.

This case concerns who can collect taxes on this gain.

Mead did not report any of this gain as income to the state of Illinois. Illinois claimed
that Mead must apportion this income, and pay taxes to Illinois on its apportioned share. The
Appellate Court of Illinois held Illinois can collect this tax.

Justice Sam Alito wrote the opinion of the Court, vacating the judgment of
the Illinois court.

The Supreme Court held, relying on prior cases, that both the 14th Amendment
due process clause and the commerce forbid the states to tax "extraterritorial
values". It added that "A State may, however, tax an apportioned share of the value
generated by the intrastate and extrastate activities of a multistate enterprise
if those activities form part of a ``‘unitary business.’´´"

The Court wrote that "We have been asked in this case to decide whether the State of
Illinois constitutionally taxed an apportioned share of the capital gain realized by an
out-of-state corporation on the sale of one of its business divisions." It also wrote
that "Because we conclude that the state courts misapprehended
the principles that we have developed for determining whether a multistate
business is unitary, we vacate the decision of the Appellate Court of Illinois."

The Court held that there must be a rational relationship between the tax and
the values connected with the taxing state.

Justice Thomas also wrote an opinion.

Regarding the commerce clause, he wrote that "To the extent that our decisions
addressing state taxation of multistate enterprises rely on the negative Commerce Clause,
I would overrule them." He added, citing one of his previous concurring opinions,
that "this Court’s negative Commerce Clause jurisprudence ``has no basis in the
Constitution and has proved unworkable in practice.´´"

Regarding the 14th Amendment, he wrote that "I agree that the Due Process
Clause requires a jurisdictional nexus ... But apart from that requirement, I am
concerned that further constraints -- particularly those limiting the degree to
which a State may tax a multistate enterprise -- require us to read into the Due
Process Clause yet another unenumerated, substantive right."

Thomas argued that the recourse of taxpayers is to go to the Congress and
seek legislation. He
wrote that "the Court’s involvement in this area is wholly unnecessary given Congress'
undisputed authority to resolve income apportionment issues by virtue of its power to regulate
commerce ``among the several States.´´"

Thomas's view, if it were adopted by the Supreme Court, would likely have a substantial
detrimental impact upon internet based businesses and e-commerce.

Many states seek to impose a variety of types of taxes on out of state businesses, and their
employees, even when they have only slight contacts with the taxing state. Use of the internet,
teleworking, and e-commerce often provide the states' pretexts for aggressive taxation. Also,
many states seek to protect in state businesses from out of state competitors -- particularly
e-commerce based companies. Also, some states seek to operate as national regulators of
interstate commerce.

Often, the only effective restrictions upon such abusive taxation, protectionism,
or regulation by states affecting internet based commerce are the Constitutional
limitations that Justice Thomas now seeks to terminate.

Justice Clarence Thomas is a states rights enthusiast, as is Justice Antonin
Scalia. However, no other Justices joined in Justice Thomas's concurrence.

7th Circuit Applies FCRA to Wireless
Communications

4/16. The U.S. Court of Appeals
(7thCir) issued its opinion in Thomas Murray v. New Cingular Wireless
Services. The Court of Appeals held that the offering of a free phone,
when one must also enter into a service contract to use that phone, is an offer
of credit within the meaning of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). It also
held that carriers' disclosures that are in black 6 point type are not
"conspicuous" within the meaning of the FCRA.

The Court of Appeals issued one opinion for three unrelated cases. The Court's reason was
that all three cases involved different issues arising under the federal FCRA, which is
codified at
15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.

In this unusual format for an appellate court opinion, the Court of Appeals
did not commence with a recitation of the facts of the case, or a summary of the
proceedings below. It merely listed a series of issues raised by these three
cases, and provided answers.

However, the District Court's opinion discloses that Thomas Murray alleges that Cingular
accessed his credit report prior to sending him a written promotion for wireless service.

Thomas Murray filed a complaint in 2004 in
U.S. District Court (NDIll) against New Cingular
Wireless Services, which is now AT&T, alleging violation of the FRCA, and seeking class
action status, and recovery of statutory damages for that class.

The Court of Appeals opinion addresses two legal issues raised by the Cingular case.

First, the Court of Appeals opinion addressed the question, "Does a promise of ``free´´
merchandise mean that an offer is not one ``of credit´´" within the meaning of
15 U.S.C. § 1681a(r)(5).

That is, Cingular accessed Murray's credit report, and those of others,
before sending him a written offer for a free phone. But, the phone was tied to
entering into a contract for the associated phone service, and hence, the offer
of a phone was also an offer of phone service.

The Court of Appeals wrote that "True, phone service is neither ``credit´´
nor ``insurance,´´ but the circular offers phone service on credit, because the
service is provided before payment is due. Deferred payment is ``credit´´ as the
statute uses that word."

It added that "A ``free´´ phone is anything but free, as it can't be had
apart from the service plan; payments for service include the cost of the phone,
which is amortized over the length of the contract. So payment for the phone is
deferred no less than payment for the phone service; the entire offer therefore
is one of credit ..."

This offer of credit only applied to Cingular's wireless phone and service plan. That
is, Murray could not use Cingular's offer of credit to make purchases from other companies.
The Court of Appeals added that "The offer need not be fully portable to be ``credit´´
within the statutory definition: ``The term 'credit' means the right granted by a creditor
to a debtor to defer payment of debt or to incur debts and defer its payment or to purchase
property or services and defer payment therefor.´´"

Second, the Court of Appeals addressed the question, "Is six-point type
``conspicuous´´" within the meaning of
15 U.S.C. § 1681m(d)?

That is, if someone accesses credit information in a transaction that was not initiated by
the consumer, that person must provide a written statement to the consumer that makes certain
disclosures "in a clear and conspicuous" manner.

The Court of Appeals engaged in a lengthy discussion of just how small and obscure these
disclosures can be, and yet still meet the statutory requirement of "conspicuous".
The opinion addresses type size, color, font, capitalization, and relation to other material
in the solicitation.

Cingular used 6 point type for "conspicuous" disclosures. The Court of Appeals
wrote that "6-point type is tiny".

It held that "Six-point type in black ink is not ``conspicuous´´ when the bulk of
the page contains much larger type. Whether 6-point type in color might suffice is a question
we need not address, since Cingular used color only for the picture and its promotional
text."

Also, the Court of Appeals added that since Murray seeks damages under a provision that
also requires a showing of recklessness, and the state of the law on conspicuousness was
less settled at the time that Cingular made the solicitation, its action was not reckless
within the meaning of the damages provision.

However, the Court of Appeals added that "It would be reckless
today to use the same notice".

This case is Thomas Murray v. New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., U.S. Court
of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, App. Ct. No. 06-2477, an appeal from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, D.C. No. 04 C 7666, Judge
Ruben Castillo presiding. Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote the opinion of the Court of Appeals,
in which Judges Flaum and Wood joined.

Washington Tech CalendarNew items are highlighted in red.

Thursday, April 17

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. See, Rep. Hoyer's
schedule for week of April 14 and
schedule for April 17.

The Senate will meet at 12:45 PM. It will resume consideration of HR 1195
[LOC |
WW], the
"Highway Technical Corrections Act of 2007".

POSTPONED TO APRIL 24.10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary
Committee (SJC) may hold an executive business meeting. The agenda includes consideration
of S 2533 [LOC |
WW], the
"State Secrets Protection Act". The SJC rarely follows its published agendas.
This bill has been on prior agendas. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM. The
House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and
Homeland Security will hold a hearing on three bills. One is HR 2352
[LOC |
WW], the
"School Safety Enhancements Act of 2007". This bill would, among other things, amend
42 U.S.C. § 3797a to authorize the Department of
Justice to provide grants to public elementary and secondary schools for
"surveillance equipment". This hearing will be webcast by the HJC. See,
notice. Location: Room 2141,
Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The Cato
Institute will host an event titled "Highly Skilled Immigrants: Opening
the Doors to Prosperity". The program will address the Congress' failure
to increase the annual limit on the number of H1B visas. The speakers
will include Sen. Judd Gregg (R-VT) and
Dan Griswold (Cato).
See, notice and
registration page. Location: Room 430, Dirksen Building, Capitol Hill.

Extended deadline to submit initial comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to it Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) regarding the Recommended Decision of the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal
Service, released on November 20, 2007, regarding comprehensive reform of high cost
universal service taxes and subsidies. The FCC adopted this NPRM on January 15, 2008,
and released the text on January 29, 2008. It is FCC 08-02 in WC Docket No. 05-337 and CC
Docket No. 96-45. See, original
notice in the Federal Register, March 4, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 43, at Pages 11587-11591. See
also, notice
[PDF] of extension (DA 08-674).

Extended deadline to submit initial comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to
its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding the use of reverse auctions to determine
the amount of high cost universal service subsidies provided to eligible
telecommunications carriers serving rural, insular, and high cost areas. The FCC adopted
this NPRM on January 9, 2008, and released the text on January 29, 2008. It is FCC 08-05
in WC Docket No. 05-337 and CC Docket No. 96-45. See, original
notice in the Federal Register, March 4, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 43, at Pages
11591-11602. See also,
notice [PDF] of extension (DA 08-674).

Extended deadline to submit initial comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to
its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding the FCC's rules governing the amount
of high cost universal service subsidies provided to competitive eligible
telecommunications carriers (ETCs). This NPRM also tentatively concludes that the FCC
should eliminate the existing identical support rule, which is also known as the equal
support rule. The FCC adopted this NPRM on January 9, 2008, and released the text on
January 29, 2008. It is FCC 08-04 in WC Docket No. 05-337 and CC Docket No. 96-45. See,
original
notice in the Federal Register, March 4, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 43, at Pages
11580-11587. See also,
notice
[PDF] of extension (DA 08-674).

Friday, April 18

Rep. Hoyer's
schedule for week of April 14 states that "no votes are expected in the
House".

Deadline to submit comments to the
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (OUSTR)
regarding the OUSTR's complaint to the World Trade
Organization (WTO) regarding the People's Republic of China's (PRC) WTO restrictions
on financial information services and financial information suppliers. See,
notice in the Federal Register, March 24, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 57, at Pages
15544-15545.

TIME? Day one of a two day invitation only conference hosted by the
Business Software Alliance (BSA) titled "BSA
High-Tech General Counsel Forum". See,
notice. Location?

Deadline to submit reply comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to
its Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding interference protection
rights for LPFM stations. The FCC adopted this item on November 27, 2007, and
released the text on December 11, 2007. It is FCC 07-204 in MB Docket No. 99-25. See,
notice in the Federal Register, March 6, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 45, at Pages 12061-12065,
and Public
Notice [PDF] (DA 08-531).

Deadline to submit reply comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to
its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding expanding the local number portability
(LNP) requirements and numbering related rules, including compliance with N11 code
assignments, to interconnected voice over internet protocol (VOIP) providers. The
FCC adopted this NPRM on October 31, 2007, and released the text on November 8, 2007.
See, story titled "FCC Extends LNP Requirements to Interconnected VOIP" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No.
1,668, November 2, 2007. This NPRM is FCC 07-188 in WC Docket Nos. 07-243 and 07-244. See,
notice in the Federal Register, February 21, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 35, at
Pages 9507-9515.

Deadline to submit comments to the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in response to its notice of
proposed rulemaking regarding its Technology Innovation Program (TIP). See,
notice in the Federal Register, March 7, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 46, at Pages
12305-12312.

TIME? Day two of a two day invitation only conference hosted by the
Business Software Alliance (BSA) titled "BSA
High-Tech General Counsel Forum". See,
notice. Location?

Wednesday, April 23

9:00 AM. Day one of a two day partially closed meeting of the
Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of Industry and
Security's (BIS) Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee. The agenda
for April 23, 2008, includes "Atomic Layer Deposition and Cluster Tools" (ALD)
and "Equipment Performing Analog-to-Digital Conversions". See,
notice in the Federal Register,
April 8, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 68, at Pages 19049-19050. This notice does define or explain
"Atomic Layer Deposition" (ALD). It is a chemical process for creating thin
layers of film, as thin as one atom, on, among other things, semiconductors. Nor does the
notice discuss uses of ALD by Intel, AMD, or other semiconductor manufacturers. See, Intel
paper that
references ALD. Location: Room 3884, DOC, 14th St. between Constitution and Pennsylvania
Ave., NW.

RESCHEDULED FROM APRIL 16.
10:00 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee
(SJC) will hold a hearing titled "National Security Letters: The Need for Greater
Accountability and Oversight". The witnesses will be James Baker (former Counsel
for Intelligence Policy, Department of Justice), Gregory Nojeim
(Center for Democracy and Technology), and Michael Woods
(former Chief, National Security Law Unit, Office of the General Counsel,
FBI). Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

12:00 NOON. The Cato
Institute will host a book event. The speakers will be Eric Lichtblau, author of Bush’s
Law: The Remaking of American Justice [Amazon], and
Timothy Lynch (Cato). On December
16, 2005, the New York Times published a
story by James Risen
and Lichtblau titled "Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts", which
disclosed a federal surveillance operation involving warrantless intercepts. See also, story
titled "Bush, Gonzales & Hayden Discuss Presidential Intercepts and PATRIOT Act"
in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No.
1,276, December 20, 2005. Lunch will be served after the program. And see, NYT's
listing of articles by Lichtblau. See,
notice and registration page. This
event will be webcast by Cato. Location: Cato, 1000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

DATE AND TIME CHANGE. 2:30 PM. The
Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) will hold a
hearing titled "Phantom Traffic". The SCC
notice states that this hearing "will examine concerns regarding traffic over
telephone networks that is sent without identifying information used for intercarrier
billing purposes". Location Room 253, Russell Building.

9:00 AM - 2:00 PM. The Institute
for Policy Innovation (IPI) will host an event titled "IPI's Third Annual World
Intellectual Property Day Event". The first panel is titled "Digital
Technologies: Emerging Challenges, Evolving Strategies"; the speakers will be
Solveig Singleton (IPI), Mitch Bainwol (RIAA), Dan
Glickman (MPAA), and Steve Largent
(CTIA). The second panel is titled "Social and
Economic Benefits of IP: Who Wins? Who Loses?"; the speakers will be Susan Finston
(IPI), Lien Verbauwhede Koglin (WIPO),
Michael
Gollin (Venable law firm), and Mohit Mehrotra
(Excel Life Sciences). The third panel is
titled "The Intellectual Property Marketplace: The Role of IP Valuation and Tech
Transfer"; the speakers will be Bartlett Cleland (IPI), Usha Balakrishnan
(Collaborative Social Responsibility Solutions), Abha Divine
(Techquity), and Robert Cresanti
(Ocean Tomo). The fourth panel is titled
"Combating (Dangerous) Counterfeits: How Countries are Policing their
Borders"; the speakers will be Chris Israel (IPI), Mike DuBose (Chief,
Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section,
Department of Justice), Nick Smith (Immigration and Customs
Enforcement), and Dave Walters (Cisco).
This event is free. Lunch will be provided. RSVP to Erin Humiston at 972-874-5139 or erin at ipi
dot org. Location: 5th floor, Reserve Officer Association, 1 Constitution
Ave., NE.

9:00 AM. Day two of a two day partially closed meeting of the
Department of Commerce's (DOC) Bureau of Industry and
Security's (BIS) Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee. The April
24, 2008, meeting is closed, and its agenda is undisclosed. See,
notice in the Federal Register,
April 8, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 68, at Pages 19049-19050. Location: Room 3884, DOC, 14th St.
between Constitution and Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

TIME?. The Department of State's (DOS) International
Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet. The agenda may include
advice for the U.S. government on the ITU World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly
2008 (WTSA 08), meetings of the Telecommunication Sector Advisory Group (TSAG), and group
meetings on the International Telecommunication Regulations, cybersecurity, and other
subjects. See,
notice in the Federal Register, February 28, 2008, Vol. 73, No. 40, at Page
10854. Location?

Tech Law Journal publishes a free access web site and
subscription e-mail alert. The basic rate for a subscription
to the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert is $250 per year. However, there
are discounts for subscribers with multiple recipients. Free one
month trial subscriptions are available. Also, free
subscriptions are available for journalists,
federal elected officials, and employees of the Congress, courts, and
executive branch. The TLJ web site is
free access. However, copies of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert are not
published in the web site until one month after writing. See, subscription
information page.